Anti-gay baker now takes stand against birthdays for trans people

[Bob the Unbeliever]

He doesn't, He uses love to get everyone's attention.

Except when he doesn't. Ooops!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You are another fundamentalist insisting that your interpretation of a scripture is the authoritative one. Had you actually done any research you would have found that Christians have disagreed with one another about this from the very beginning of the church. Perhaps you should take the opportunity to educate yourself?

The fact that there was any disagreement at all? Proves definitively that the bible cannot possibly be from an actual god.

A real god would never permit something that was so unclear in the first place. Only a fallible human-- which is what happened, obviously.

But. The disagreement only works if you ignore what is written in the bible. I've seen the sad excuses trying to twist it around into saying the exact opposite of what is actually written, and it's almost funny-- if so many people were not killed because of these differences.

Yet another reason the bible cannot be from any being who is good.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

sure:

The baker is not being tolerant and he is wrong. My point is that we (as external observers) should tolerate transgenders, homophobics and others that might think different than us.

But do you agree that this tolerance means also treating said groups equally when dealing with them in a professional atmosphere?

What do you mean by “unfair grounds” who should decide what counts as unfair ground?

Being discriminated against on the basis of something they were born as, have no control over or cannot simply change as an act of will.

Can a baker discriminate Gays? Can he discriminate people with a different political ideology, can he discriminate pedophiles? Can he discriminate men? Can he discriminate heterosexuals, can he discriminate criminals?

Again, not all discrimination is the same. A person may, for example, refuse service to someone at a bar on the basis of suspecting they are underage, or they may refuse service to someone who is acting in an abusive manner. But these are not protected groups.

What if the bakers is vegan and he is not willing to use anything other than soy milk for his cakes? Can he deny the service to someone who wants cow-milk? ........who decides in which cases can someone discriminate?

If a baker decides to specialize only in baking with soy milk, and that is all they advertise, then they aren't discriminating against anyone by refusing to provide a service they don't actually provide.

What if the baker hates Mcdonalds and you deny a service from this restaurant?

Could you elucidate a little more? What does that mean?

What you call “unfair grounds” might not be consider unfair by others.

So do you believe it's fair to discriminate against people based on race, religion or sexuality?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The first right mentioned in the First Amendment is NOT 'freedom of speech." It is freedom of religion, and it is the only right that is mentioned TWICE.

Except freedom of religion doesn't matter one iota, because this man's right to practice his religion isn't being infringed in any way.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Depends completely upon why.

So you finally agree that denying service to someone is not always justified.

Oh, don't be silly. Weddings are religious in nature.

False.

Weddings are not specifically religious and have been participated in and performed by secular people for a long, long time. Marriage is a right reserved for all people, not just the religious.

Anybody who doesn't think so has his/her head so far up his/her politically correct armpit that they can't see anything but the need to shave.

When in doubt, insult anyone who disagrees with you. Is that something Jesus taught you?

Never mind Phelps. He's an idiot. His original claim was that it was the event he objected to, which in his mind (and in the mind of pretty much everybody else) that event IS religious in nature.

Again, wrong. To many, many people marriage is not religious in nature.]

What's more, even if it were, it's not specifically HIS religion that has exclusive rights to marriage, so he has no authority determining what is or is not a justifiable marriage.

He stated that he would provide services to gays for any other reason or purpose.

Irrelevant. He is still refusing service to a gay wedding on the basis of the sexual preference of those involved. He is still discriminating against gay people.

Once again, if I have a Catholic friend who I treat very well in all respects, but they are the one friend I don't let look after my children because "They're Catholic and would probably do something to them", that's STILL discrimination.

In fact, In California a 'wedding' requires a license and an authorized officiator. Since any clergyman can be an authorized officiator, that makes weddings religious in nature.

Anybody can be an authorized officiator. That makes religion irrelevant.

Here. The laws regarding solemnizing marriages in California (which is pretty typical of US laws in general)

Please note some important things here: a marriage MUST be solemnized by someone; just getting a license won't do the job. In fact, after getting a license, one must marry within 90 days or start over. This marriage doesn't HAVE to be solemnized by a clergyman. One can go to a judge, (even a bankruptcy or tax court judge) a member of congress (past or present), a city clerk, or anybody who has ever been, or is now, elected to a city or county office.

But the first people listed are CLERGY. Which makes it religious when clergy are involved, and please note this: no clergyperson may be forced to perform a wedding which violates his or her beliefs.

So you completely ignore the facts and say that because "clergy" is named first, they're the ones who matter most and therefore a marriage must a religious procedure?

Think about that argument for more than two seconds, please.

Also, please note the VERY FIRST LINE of this article which you deceptively missed out:

"(a) Although marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil, and not a religious, contract, a marriage may be solemnized by a priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any religious denomination who is 18 years of age or older. A person authorized by this subdivision shall not be required to solemnize a marriage that is contrary to the tenets of his or her faith. Any refusal to solemnize a marriage under this subdivision, either by an individual or by a religious denomination, shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any entity."

Did you even read your own source?

Religions, like private clubs, can set their own rules for how they handle certain rituals and practices that are relevant to them. But businesses aren't religions. They don't get to set their own rules for how they treat customers - they exist within a framework of rules and laws that govern how they operate in order to prevent them from ripping people off, harming people, or discriminating against people.

Personally, I believe that if religious institutions refuse to marry gay couples, they should have their ability to conduct legally-recognized marriages revoked and instead conduct only entirely private ceremonies. But apparently the whole "marriage is a covenant with God and that's the most important part of it" argument is garbage, because I've never seen any religious person opposed to gay marriage be willing to give up the churches right to conduct marriages as a legal ceremony.

Now tell me: if the law cannot force the clergy to perform weddings, when performing weddings is an important part of their JOBS, how can you justify forcing a baker/photographer to 'do' a wedding which violates HIS/HER beliefs?

Because they are a business that advertises and sells wedding cakes and are required by law not to operate their business in a way that is unjustly discriminatory. A business is not a religion, nor is it a private members club. He is not making a "religious" cake. It is a cake. A gay cake doesn't take any different ingredients to any other, so he is not being asked to provide a service that he wouldn't otherwise be able to provide. They are discriminating unjustly, end of story.

The thing is, gay people can, and do, marry people of the opposite sex. It's probably a very bad idea and may well result in unhappiness and even tragedy, but they CAN do that....and if they do, you can bet your cake topper that the baker/photographer would have had no problem 'doing' the wedding.

Which proves that the basis for the baker's actions is unjust discrimination on the basis of sexuality, not the event of a wedding. It is a gay wedding they are objecting to. If someone objects to interracial marriage (or, say, the idea of black people marrying in general), I don't doubt for one second that you would consider that position racist, so why are you giving special dispensation to homophobes?

Even if one of the bridal party is gay.

Irrelevant.

Ultimately, what you're asking for isn't for this baker to have his freedom of religion. He already has that.

What you are arguing for is for religious groups to have a special right to use BUSINESSES to discriminate against people or groups they feel don't deserve the same rights as them.

 

[dfnj]

Last year:



This year:

Jack Phillips is suing after getting in trouble for refusing to make a birthday cake for a trans woman.

Christian Baker: Making a Birthday Cake for a Trans Woman Violates My Faith

Anyone who chooses to make "cakes" for a living is probably a closet homosexual repressing himself into a spectacle.

 

[leroy]

But do you agree that this tolerance means also treating said groups equally when dealing with them in a professional atmosphere?


.........

So do you believe it's fair to discriminate against people based on race, religion or sexuality?

Agree...

My point is that bakers should be free to deny a service if they consider it morally wrong. Regardless if this corresponds to our personal moral values or not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Agree...

My point is that bakers should be free to deny a service if they consider it morally wrong. Regardless if this corresponds to our personal moral values or not.

So if a baker believes it's "morally wrong" for black people to be served as equals to white people, do you believe it should be legal for them to deny service to them?

 

[sojourner]

Well, yeah. I just wish those who cannot accept the slightest variance from what they personally insist must be "true", would be less vocal, and less insistent on creating laws based in their personal wishes as to what their "god" supposedly "tells" them to do...

Me too.

 

[sojourner]

Well, I have met too many religions "ministers" that were far less qualified than your average dog, to do actual ministering activities. Yet? These dangerously inept people were ministers at churches....

I don't think the on-line minister papers is diluting anything that was not already grossly abused by people who should have no business trying to "help" people in the first place.

I wholeheartedly agree with your first statement. But here’s the thing: you know what they call the man who graduated last on his class from medical school?


“Doctor.”


There are trustworthy, fully-accredited graduate seminaries that do everything in their power to train people for professional, effective ministry. The mainline denominations ALL require this training before their various commissions on ministry further put ordination candidates through psychiatric, psychological, vocational, and medical testing, as well as criminal background checks, AND spiritual discernment. Only after all hoops have been cleared is one approved for candidacy. That’s a lot of training and vetting. There is a reasonable chance that such a professional is prepared and effective — more so than someone who fills out an online application. It does cheapen the profession, because the second still gets to put “The Reverend” in front of her/his name and wear a collar. It’s illegal to practice medicine or law without a license, and it’s illegal to present yourself as such. It should be illegal to misrepresent oneself as an ordained minister without the same qualifications.

 

[sojourner]

Different religions will have different views on what that office entails. Why should one view dictate all?

Of course they do. But we’re not talking “Buddhist monk” here. We’re talking Christian clergy.” And all mainline denominations have rigorous training and processes of vetting in place. There are among them some universal standards.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I object to this practice. It cheapens the office in ways too numerous to mention here. Just because someone gets a piece of paper online doesn’t mean that that someone is in any way prepared or qualified to engage the work of ministry. In short, it’s a misrepresentation, because I doubt that the person passing himself off as “clergy” could elaborate on the theological and spiritual implications of marriage, provide spiritual counsel, or is prepared to do any kind of follow up spiritual care for the couple.

As if being qualified as clergy the normal way qualifies someone as any sort of legitimate counsellor.

Sure, some actually qualified counsellors pursue degrees in theology on top of that, but just a theology degree no more qualifies a minister as a counsellor than my one "law for engineers" class qualifies me as a lawyer.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I wholeheartedly agree with your first statement. But here’s the thing: you know what they call the man who graduated last on his class from medical school?


“Doctor.”


There are trustworthy, fully-accredited graduate seminaries that do everything in their power to train people for professional, effective ministry. The mainline denominations ALL require this training before their various commissions on ministry further put ordination candidates through psychiatric, psychological, vocational, and medical testing, as well as criminal background checks, AND spiritual discernment. Only after all hoops have been cleared is one approved for candidacy. That’s a lot of training and vetting. There is a reasonable chance that such a professional is prepared and effective — more so than someone who fills out an online application. It does cheapen the profession, because the second still gets to put “The Reverend” in front of her/his name and wear a collar. It’s illegal to practice medicine or law without a license, and it’s illegal to present yourself as such. It should be illegal to misrepresent oneself as an ordained minister without the same qualifications.

Well, except that your desire for qualifications would then constitute religious discrimination, in that there are a fairly large fraction of the religious, who deeply distrust any and all University Education. And, in fact, celebrate how little education they actually have...

And the Constitution forbids such discrimination, so...

Whereas I understand your lament, I do not agree with it, as it would put the Government in charge of defining what "minister" really means. Do you really want to go there?

 

[leroy]

So if a baker believes it's "morally wrong" for black people to be served as equals to white people, do you believe it should be legal for them to deny service to them?

Yes I believe that it would be an abomination, but it should be legal.

And it also should be legal to denounce this bakery In the media and in social networks, so that “antiracists” would stop buying form that baker.

Racism and homophobia should end because of social awareness, not because the law forces you.

 

[sojourner]

As if being qualified as clergy the normal way qualifies someone as any sort of legitimate counsellor.

Sure, some actually qualified counsellors pursue degrees in theology on top of that, but just a theology degree no more qualifies a minister as a counsellor than my one "law for engineers" class qualifies me as a lawyer.

Please note that I said “provide spiritual counsel,” not “provide counseling.”

 

[sojourner]

Well, except that your desire for qualifications would then constitute religious discrimination, in that there are a fairly large fraction of the religious, who deeply distrust any and all University Education. And, in fact, celebrate how little education they actually have...

And the Constitution forbids such discrimination, so...

Whereas I understand your lament, I do not agree with it, as it would put the Government in charge of defining what "minister" really means. Do you really want to go there?

I didn’t say the government ought to be in charge of it. I simply object to the practice of religious film-flammery.

 

[InChrist]

Torture is immoral. Regardless of the motive-- and for a god? There would be so very many alternatives than torture.

Your god is still immoral. Sorry. And anything but good or loving. The opposite, actually...

The God of the Bible does not torture anyone. If you believe this, I don't think you understand the teaching of the scriptures concerning separation from God.

 

[InChrist]

So you are now saying your bible... LIED? Okay... that's progress of a sort.

Maybe you should clarify your thoughts and tell me specifically what you mean. Feel free to refer to scriptures, too, which you believe indicate God is immoral or tortures people.

 

[dianaiad]

He can think what he wants. But he can’t refuse them the same service he offers to others. “Wedding cake” = “wedding cake” — no matter who’s getting married. He’s not required to like them or agree with them or be attracted to them. He can exercise his religious belief by not marrying another man, himself. “Baking cakes” is a culinary endeavor — not a religious endeavor.

...and you have a right to your opinion about this.

I repeat. This isn't about what he thinks. It's not about what I think (and I think he's wrong). It's about what HE thinks.

 

[dianaiad]

So, his idea of what they should do should dictate their choice??

How is his refusing to bake a cake for them affecting their choice to marry in any way?